Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Trumps
Beneath Trump’s Chaotic Spending Freeze: An Idea That Crosses Party Lines
When President Trump said on Wednesday that his order to freeze federal spending was about “scams, dishonesty, waste and abuse,” he was echoing promises made by his predecessors in both parties.
Yes, the memo was a sweeping attempt to remake what he calls a “woke” government in his image. Yes, it was part of his retribution agenda to purge the “deep state” of his perceived enemies. And yes, it was an assertion of presidential power that threatened to undermine a core congressional authority — the power to direct federal spending.
But beneath all that, it was also one of the most far-reaching attempts to somehow reverse the seemingly inexorable growth of the federal government, an issue that resonates with some Democrats as well as most Republicans.
Mr. Trump’s order was blocked by a federal judge, but the chaos and confusion it caused may make it even harder to achieve his desired goal. Democrats now appear energized to oppose any effort by the president to slash programs, and government unions have issued new statements vowing to protect their workers from cuts. Organizations that receive federal money are now worried and wary.
But there is no indication that Mr. Trump is likely to give up. In a social media post on Wednesday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, referred to a series of executive orders signed by Mr. Trump, saying that “the President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
If that is the case, Mr. Trump will be continuing a mostly-failed effort by a long series of presidents and Congress. As measured by the numbers of people it employs, the federal bureaucracy increased by about 12 percent between 1984 (when Ronald Reagan was president) and 2020 (near the end of Mr. Trump’s first term), according to data compiled by the Brookings Institution. During that period, the population of the United States grew faster, by around 45 percent.
The amount of money the government spends has skyrocketed under Democratic and Republican presidents. Total federal spending in 2015 was $4.89 trillion, according to federal data. In 2024, it was $6.75 trillion. Even when accounting for the growth of the overall economy, spending as a percentage of gross domestic product was higher in 2024 than it was eight years earlier.
In that same period, the national debt — the total amount that the government has borrowed — grew to $35.4 trillion from $18.1 trillion.
Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Mr. Trump’s memo appeared to be designed less to shrink government and more to “eliminate programs at odds with the Administration’s social and cultural values.” But she said that does not mean the underlying idea was a mistake.
“A similar exercise, however (minus the chaotic release, and including an assessment before changes were made rather than the other way around) would be immensely useful in controlling spending if the focus were on evaluating efficiency and effectiveness,” she said. “A granular exercise like this is desperately needed in as many tax expenditure and spending programs as possible.”
There is a long history of attempts to rein in spending and address concerns that the government is bloated and inefficient.
Vice President Al Gore created and led the National Partnership for Reinventing Government in 1993 in the hopes of making government more efficient, more cost-effective and, ultimately, smaller. Over a number of years, hundreds of government agencies were either eliminated or consolidated, but the effort did little to change the overall direction of the government’s growth.
President George W. Bush, like many Republicans of his day, championed a smaller federal government during his term, but oversaw a period when the government grew under his eight-year watch. In a State of the Union address at the beginning of his second term, President Barack Obama said “it’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government.” He, too, presided over a government that expanded.
In part, experts say, that is because despite being a bipartisan goal, the Republican and Democratic parties have grown increasingly more divided about which parts of the government to keep and which to cut.
Democrats have tended to favor social programs, such as education, child welfare, health care, the environment and diplomacy. Republicans — and more recently Mr. Trump’s MAGA movement — have been focused on the border, police and building a larger military. Areas of agreement, or at least compromise, have become more and more rare.
For his part, Mr. Trump has always talked a big game about wanting to disrupt what he calls “the establishment” in part by waging war against the federal bureaucracy.
In his first inaugural address, Mr. Trump hinted at his disdain of the federal government that he had been elected to lead, saying that “we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the American people.”
“Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth,” he added.
By his second inaugural address this month, it was clear that the president’s animosity toward the federal government and its employees had only deepened.
“Our country can no longer deliver basic services in times of emergency,” he asserted, saying that since he departed the White House four years ago, “we now have a government that cannot manage even a simple crisis at home while, at the same time, stumbling into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad.”
Mr. Trump promised he would “restore competence and effectiveness to our federal government.”
But as president the first time, Mr. Trump was often reminded how difficult it can be to alter the arc of the government. Not counting the military and contractors, the size of the civilian federal work force grew from about 1.85 million employees to about 1.94 million employees. That came about in part because the government hired workers for efforts toward the president’s goals on border security, trade and support for veterans, according to a recent analysis.
The president’s efforts to slash the government this week have been more direct and more blunt. The funding freeze memo was meant to identify large parts of the federal bureaucracy to eliminate if the work clashed with Mr. Trump’s conservative social and cultural views.
A second order, which remains in force for now, offers an early retirement option for employees who don’t want to return to the office after working from home since the Covid pandemic. The administration has estimated that as many as 10 percent of the federal work force might accept the offer. But if even half of that number do, it would be a dramatic reduction in the number of government workers.
Still, Ms. MacGuineas said that even those kinds of cuts would not be enough to confront the nation’s burgeoning debt from spending too much over many decades.
To make a real impact on the debt, she said, “we are going to have to look at the big areas of the budget for savings — Social Security, health care, and revenues — the very same areas both political parties are tripping over themselves not to address.”
In the midst of President Trump’s recent announcement of a spending freeze, there lies an idea that has the potential to bring both Democrats and Republicans together in a rare show of bipartisanship.The idea revolves around the concept of fiscal responsibility and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently. While the specifics of the spending freeze may be contentious, the underlying principle of curbing unnecessary government spending is one that both sides of the political spectrum can agree on.
In a time of heightened political polarization, finding common ground on issues like government spending can be a refreshing change. By focusing on areas where there is agreement, rather than constantly bickering over divisive issues, politicians can work together to create policies that benefit all Americans.
As the debate over the spending freeze continues, let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: the need for responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This is an idea that transcends party lines and has the potential to bring our country together in pursuit of a common goal.
Tags:
- Trump spending freeze
- Bipartisan idea
- Political party lines
- Government spending
- Fiscal policy
- Trump administration
- Economic impact
- Cross-party cooperation
- Budget management
- Policy analysis
#Beneath #Trumps #Chaotic #Spending #Freeze #Idea #Crosses #Party #Lines
Donald Trump’s defining decade
Listen to this story. Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Donald Trump invoked the 1890s in laying out the agenda for his second term. But from his demand for the Panama Canal to his declaration of a national energy emergency to his order releasing the records of the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the music he grooved to at his inaugural balls, Mr Trump, in his first days back in office, has instead evoked a different decade: the 1970s, formative years for him, and for America.
It was in 1971 that Mr Trump, then in his mid-20s, moved from Queens into Manhattan, taking a rent-stabilised studio apartment with a view of a water tank. He had ambitions to turn his father’s Brooklyn-based business building middle-class housing into something grander. By the decade’s end he would be a millionaire in his own right, married to a glamorous immigrant and a fixture at clubs like Studio 54, with growing celebrity for projects such as his eponymous tower rising on 5th Avenue.
As he exited the 1970s in his mid-30s, the apprentice years of adulthood behind him, Mr Trump, like many Americans, had reasons to be cynical about politics and business, to be fearful of inflation and oil scarcity and urban crime, to be drawn to conspiracy theories, to think America had lost the national self-assurance of his childhood in the 1950s. During what Tom Wolfe branded “The ‘Me’ Decade”, amid revelations of dirty deeds by sainted figures, as Americans more freely embraced and divorced each other, old ideas about duty and service came to seem like frauds. “Forget foundationless traditions, forget the ‘moral’ standards others may have tried to cram down your throat,” advised one bestseller in those years, “Looking out for Number One”.
“The 1970s were daunting and frightening because habits and institutions that had succeeded brilliantly for half a century suddenly sputtered,” David Frum writes in his history of the decade, “How We Got Here: The 70s”. “Never—not even during the Depression—had American pride and self-confidence plunged deeper.” The disillusion, fear and reaction of those years hardened into the worldview that has carried Mr Trump twice to the Oval Office.
At the start of the 1970s Mr Trump met Roy Cohn, the man who probably influenced him more than anyone besides his father, sharpening his reflex to fight all comers for every advantage, as he is doing now as president. A ferocious New York lawyer, Mr Cohn became Mr Trump’s mentor, “introducing him to the netherworld of sordid quid pro quos that Cohn ruled”, wrote Mr Trump’s dogged biographer, Wayne Barrett, in “Trump”. Over the course of the 1970s Mr Trump became the largest individual donor in New York state and local elections. “I can buy a US senator for $200,000,” he once told an associate back then.
Revelations spilling out of the Watergate investigations were teaching all Americans similar lessons, and implicating more than just President Richard Nixon. America’s great corporations for years had evaded the law with donations to politicians of both parties. Not only Nixon had secretly recorded meetings in the Oval Office. So had Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy.
In 1976 Congress for the first time created a permanent committee to oversee the intelligence agencies, and it revealed shocking secrets about coups and assassinations by the CIA. Then came revelations about the FBI. Robert Kennedy himself had ordered wiretaps on Martin Luther King. As suspicions of skulduggery grew, Congress in 1976 ordered investigations into the assassinations of John Kennedy and King. Hollywood seized on the spectre of rot in America’s foundations for the plots of such movies as “Three Days of the Condor”, about CIA murders of Americans, “Chinatown” and the “Godfather” series. Mr Trump’s response in 2017 when an interviewer called Vladimir Putin a killer—“You think our country’s so innocent?”—was straight out of the 1970s.
Government was coming to seem not just corrupt but incompetent. New York City teetered at the edge of bankruptcy as officials struggled to stem rising theft and homicide. “Welcome to Fear City” read pamphlets bearing a death’s head that police officers in casual clothes handed out to tourists in 1975. During a citywide blackout in 1977, chaos swept the streets, resulting in hundreds of injuries to police officers and thousands of arrests for looting. One might well have called it American carnage.
Four years of the condor
Nationally, new laws in the 1960s led to a surge in immigration in the 1970s, and illegal immigration along with it. Backlash was building against new rights granted to non-citizens, as it was against policies meant to advance integration and equality such as affirmative action and busing. Mr Trump first hired Cohn to defend him against a Justice Department suit accusing the Trumps’ company of excluding black renters. Asked at a deposition in 1974 when the first black people moved into one of his projects, Mr Trump replied, “I don’t care and I don’t know.” He was insisting on the same sort of “colour-blindness” he declared in his inaugural address this month to now be government policy.
Mr Trump once lamented that during the 1970s America lost “the feeling of supremacy that this country had in the 1950s”. In the 1970s, ceding control of the Panama Canal divided conservatives. In a televised debate with Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, the founding editor of National Review, said turning the canal over would bring Americans “increased security and increased self-esteem”. Time has proved him correct as far as security goes. But to many on the right the treaty with Panama became an exhibit of the same weakness that led to failure in Vietnam and the Iranian hostage crisis. Mr Trump’s pledge to retake the canal is a direct assault on the 1970s, and it underscores a basic question about his second term: will he lead Americans to transcend that decade at last, or to wallow in it? ■
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our new Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.
Donald Trump’s defining decade: A look back at the political career of the controversial presidentLove him or hate him, there’s no denying that Donald Trump has had a profound impact on American politics over the past decade. From his unexpected rise to the presidency in 2016 to his tumultuous term in office, Trump has been a polarizing figure who has sparked heated debates and divided the nation.
Throughout his presidency, Trump made headlines for his unconventional leadership style, blunt rhetoric, and controversial policies. He faced numerous scandals, impeachment proceedings, and a global pandemic that tested his administration’s response. Despite facing fierce criticism from his opponents, Trump maintained a loyal base of supporters who lauded his efforts to shake up the political establishment.
As Trump’s presidency came to an end in 2020, he made history as the only president to be impeached twice. His refusal to concede the election and baseless claims of voter fraud further fueled tensions in the country. In the final days of his presidency, Trump faced backlash for his role in inciting a violent mob to storm the Capitol, resulting in his second impeachment.
As we look back on Trump’s defining decade, it’s clear that his impact on American politics will be felt for years to come. Whether you view him as a champion of the people or a dangerous demagogue, there’s no denying that Trump’s presidency was a turning point in the nation’s history. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump will be remembered as one of the most controversial and divisive presidents in modern times.
Tags:
- Donald Trump
- Presidency
- Politics
- United States
- President
- Republican Party
- Policy
- Leadership
- Controversy
- Legacy
#Donald #Trumps #defining #decade
How the World Is Reeling From Trump’s Aid Freeze
In famine-stricken Sudan, soup kitchens that feed hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in a war zone have shut down.
In Thailand, war refugees with life-threatening diseases have been turned away by hospitals and carted off on makeshift stretchers.
In Ukraine, residents on the frontline of the war with Russia may be going without firewood in the middle of winter.
Some of the world’s most vulnerable populations are already feeling President Trump’s sudden cutoff of billions of dollars in American aid that helps fend off starvation, treats diseases and provides shelter for the displaced.
In a matter of days, Mr. Trump’s order to freeze nearly all U.S. foreign aid has intensified humanitarian crises and raised profound questions about America’s reliability and global standing.
“Everyone is freaking out,” Atif Mukhtar of the Emergency Response Rooms, a local volunteer group in the besieged Sudanese capital, Khartoum, said of the aid freeze.
Soon after announcing the cutoff, the Trump administration abruptly switched gears. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week that “life-saving humanitarian assistance” could continue, offering a respite for what he called “core” efforts to provide food, medicine, shelter and other emergency needs.
But he stressed that the reprieve was “temporary in nature,” with limited exceptions. Beyond that, hundreds of senior officials and workers who help distribute American aid had already been fired or put on leave, and many aid efforts remain paralyzed around the world.
Most of the soup kitchens in Khartoum, the battle-torn capital of Sudan, have shut down. Until last week, the United States was the largest source of money for the volunteer-run kitchens that fed 816,000 people there.
“For most people, it’s the only meal they get,” said Hajooj Kuka, a spokesman for the Emergency Response Rooms, describing Khartoum as a city “on the edge of starvation.”
After the American money was frozen last week, some of the aid groups that channel those funds to the food kitchens said they were unsure if they were allowed to continue. Others cut off the money completely. Now, 434 of the 634 volunteer kitchens in the capital have shut down, Mr. Kuka said.
“And more are going out of service every day,” he added.
Many of the aid workers, doctors and people in need who rely on American aid are now reckoning with their relationship with the United States and the message the Trump administration is sending: America is focusing on itself.
“It feels like one easy decision by the U.S. president is quietly killing so many lives,” said Saw Nah Pha, a tuberculosis patient who said he was told to leave a U.S.-funded hospital in the Mae La refugee camp, the largest refugee camp on the Thai-Myanmar border.
Mr. Nah Pha, who fled Myanmar in 2007 to escape the fighting there, said the staff gave him a week’s supply of medicine and told him that was all they could provide. “Once my medicine runs out, I have nowhere else to get it,” he added.
The public health implications of the aid freeze are broad, health workers say. In Cambodia, which had been on the cusp of eradicating malaria with the help of the United States, officials now worry that a halt in funding will set them back. In Nepal, a $72 million program to reduce malnutrition has been suspended. In South Africa and Haiti, officials and aid workers worry that hundreds of thousands of people could die if the Trump administration withdraws support for a signature American program to fight H.I.V. and AIDS.
Some programs that don’t fit the category of lifesaving aid remain frozen, while others are explicitly barred because they fall outside of the administration’s ideological bounds, including any help with abortions, gender or diversity issues. (Though Mr. Rubio specifically barred assistance with abortions, federal law had already done so.)
The United Nations Population Fund, the U.N.’s sexual and reproductive health agency, said that because of the funding freeze, maternal and mental health services to millions of women in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, Ukraine, and other places had been disrupted or eliminated. In Afghanistan, where the Taliban has banned women from working, 1,700 Afghan women who worked for the agency would no longer be employed.
At stake is not just the good will that the United States has built internationally, but also its work to promote America’s security interests. In Ivory Coast, an American-sponsored program collecting sensitive intelligence on Al Qaeda-related incidents has been interrupted.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, some of the funding to United Nations agencies supporting more than 4.5 million people displaced by a rapidly growing conflict in the country’s east has been frozen, according to a U.S. humanitarian official on the continent.
Even with Mr. Rubio’s announcements that lifesaving efforts could resume, much of the American aid system in Africa remained paralyzed by the confusion and disruptions, including in conflict-hit areas where every day counts.
“When they issue these broad orders, they don’t seem to understand what exactly they are turning off,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior U.S.A.I.D. official under the Biden administration who is now the president of Refugees International. “They’re pulling levers without knowing what’s on the other end.”
Some of the roughly $70 billion in annual foreign aid approved by Congress has been directed at supporting civil society in countries with authoritarian regimes, especially in places where the United States sees democratic gains as furthering American security or diplomatic interests.
In Iran, where the work of documenting detentions, executions and women’s rights abuses is done by outside entities funded by the United States, activists say the U.S. pullback now means that there will be few entities holding the Iranian government accountable.
A Persian-language media outlet funded by the U.S. government said their employees were working on a voluntary basis to keep the website going for now, but they had fired all their freelancers. Without money, they said they could not keep going.
“While Trump campaigned on a promise of maximum pressure on the Iranian government, his decision to cut funding for dozens of U.S.-supported pro-democracy and human rights initiatives does the opposite — it applies maximum pressure on the regime’s opponents,” said Omid Memarian, an expert on Iran’s human rights issues at DAWN, a Washington-based group focused on American foreign policy.
In Cambodia, Pa Tongchen, 25, was relying on American funding for journalism in a country where nearly all independent media has been crushed. He was scheduled to start work on Feb. 3 as a staff reporter at a media outlet run by a nonprofit that was set up with U.S. support.
Mr. Pa said he had hoped to shine a light on corruption through his work. “I want to help people who are vulnerable in our society,” he said. “They are ignored if no journalists report about them.”
In Egypt, where the United States funds scholarships for more than 1,000 undergraduate students at private and public universities, students were left in limbo.
“I was in real shock, and I didn’t know what to do, especially since they told us to leave the dorm immediately,” said Ahmed Mahmoud, 18, a student who was about to start classes next semester at the American University but instead had to throw all his belongings into five boxes.
The fallout from the aid freeze is likely to reverberate geopolitically, giving American rivals, like China, a window of opportunity to present itself as a reliable partner.
“That will set China apart from the U.S. to win the hearts and minds of many of the global south countries,” said Jingdong Yuan, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s China and Asia Security program.
In Africa, America’s well-run aid machinery was one of the factors that differentiated the United States from China and Russia. While Moscow deploys mercenaries and Beijing mines for rare minerals, Washington has reached across the continent with aid programs worth billions of dollars that not only save lives, but also provide a powerful form of diplomatic soft power.
Now much of that is in doubt. In Africa’s war zones, some are already regretful of their dependence on American aid.
“It was our fault to rely so heavily on one donor,” said Mr. Atif, of the Emergency Response Rooms in Sudan. “But this has really shocked us. You can’t take food off people who are starving. That’s just insane.”
On the border of Thailand and Myanmar, the implications of Mr. Trump’s decision were stark. There, a four-year civil war and decades of fighting between Myanmar’s military junta and ethnic armies have pushed thousands of refugees into Thailand.
Saw Tha Ker, the camp leader for the Mae La camp, said he was told on Friday by the International Rescue Committee, a group that receives U.S. funding, that it would stop supporting medical care, water and waste management for all of the seven refugee hospitals managed by his camp.
“The first thought that came to my mind was that whoever made this decision has no compassion at all,” said Mr. Tha Ker.
Mr. Tha Ker said he and his staff had to tell 60 patients in one hospital that they had to go home. Videos posted on social media showed men carrying patients on makeshift stretchers through unpaved streets.
“We explained to them that the hospital itself is like a person struggling to breathe through someone else’s nose,” he added. “Now that the support has stopped, it feels like we are just waiting for the end.”
Reporting was contributed by Mujib Mashal in New Delhi, Pamodi Waravita in Colombo, Bhadra Sharma from Kathmandu, Elian Peltier in Dakar, Vivian Yee and Rania Khaled in Cairo, Daniel Politi in Buenos Aires, David C. Adams in Florida, Leily Nikounazar in Brussels and Sun Narin in Phnom Penh.
In recent weeks, the world has been left in shock and disbelief as news of President Trump’s decision to freeze aid to various countries spreads. This unprecedented move has sent shockwaves through the international community, leaving many wondering about the potential consequences and implications.The decision to freeze aid to countries such as Ukraine, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala has been met with widespread condemnation and concern. Many fear that this abrupt halt in aid could have devastating effects on the most vulnerable populations in these countries, including women, children, and refugees.
The freeze in aid has also raised questions about the United States’ role as a global leader and its commitment to supporting international development and humanitarian efforts. With the world already facing numerous challenges, from climate change to political instability, many are left wondering how this decision will impact global stability and cooperation.
As the world grapples with the implications of Trump’s aid freeze, it is crucial for leaders and citizens alike to come together to find solutions and support those in need. Only through solidarity and collaboration can we hope to address the pressing issues facing our world today.
Tags:
- Trump aid freeze
- USA aid freeze
- Global impact of aid freeze
- Political consequences of aid freeze
- Trump administration policies
- International relations under Trump
- Economic effects of aid freeze
- Humanitarian aid freeze
- Trump foreign policy
- World reaction to aid freeze
#World #Reeling #Trumps #Aid #Freeze
Philly officials take a stand against President Donald Trump’s anti-immigration efforts
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials showed up at Boricua Restaurant #2 in Port Richmond this week, staff refused their request to see the kitchen. All of their paperwork was in order and the agents didn’t have a warrant, the owner of the Puerto Rican restaurant said.
“Unfortunately, with the situation with ICE going on, you have to truly know how to defend yourself verbally in calm situations,” Hector Serrano said in an Instagram post about the incident. “They’ll come in and they’ll try to use their badge or their uniforms to attack you.”
It was at least the second incident involving ICE agents this week — seven undocumented migrants were detained at a car wash in Juniata Park on Tuesday. Following these events, City Council members, state politicians and immigration experts took part in a news conference Friday to provide an update on the city’s efforts and residents’ rights in the wake of President Donald Trump’s anti-immigration efforts during his first weeks in office.
Trump has promised mass deportations and said he would target sanctuary cities, which include Philadelphia. He has also issued a series of executive orders, including one to end birthright citizenship.
Public officials said ICE officers enforce civil law, not criminal, meaning they need a warrant before they enter any building — although it turns into a legal gray area if a home or business owner grants them entrance. On the street, they can only detain people if they’ve identified that they have an outstanding removal or deportation order.
“At a basic level, in order to do whatever it is that they want to do, an investigation or apprehension, they do generally need specific warrants for specific individuals,” said Rep. Joseph Hohenstein (D), a former immigration rights lawyer who represents the 177th District, which includes a section of Philadelphia.
Officials on Friday also said hospitals, schools and social service agencies will not report undocumented immigrants. Earlier this week, the Philadelphia School District issued protocols which said employees, volunteers and contractors can’t ask about or share information on students and their families, and that ICE agents will be required to show documentation and go through the Office of General Counsel if they arrive on the premises.
District Attorney Larry Krasner (D) said the anti-commandeering doctrine, which limits the federal government from forcing states to comply with federal law, means that local law enforcement does not have to aid ICE officials in “Nazi stuff.”
“Local law enforcement can volunteer to do Nazi stuff, I’m sure I stand with all my colleagues up here when I say ‘Nope. N-O-P-E. No,’” Krasner said. “Maybe there are some local law enforcement officials who want to put on jackboots and gray uniforms and march behind this, but not us. That’s where we are.”
He added that local law enforcement can’t interfere with legal actions by ICE but said agents can be prosecuted locally for any illegal activity that takes place.
Hohenstein said he’s seen many cases of mistaken identities and people that are in the United States legally accidentally swept up in raids and deported.
“When I was in practice, there were several times I had people unlawfully removed from the county and I was able to bring them back, but not before there was severe harm,” he said.
He also warned that another potential implication of these efforts is an “erosion” of confidence in law enforcement, resulting in fewer people reporting crimes out of fear of persecution.
State Sens. Sharif Street, Vincent Hughes and Nikil Saval, State Rep. Danilo Burgos and Councilmembers Rue Landau, Nina Ahmad, Nic O’Rourke and Jamie Gauthier all spoke at Friday’s event. On Thursday, City Council voted 16-1 in favor of a resolution condemning Trump for his Cabinet selection, which the legislation said undermined American democracy. Brian O’Neill, the council’s lone Republican, voted against the measure.
Noticeably absent from the news conference was Mayor Cherelle Parker, who has not taken a strong stance on immigration and Philadelphia’s efforts to remain a sanctuary city since Trump was elected in November.
Jasmine Rivera, executive director of the Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, also spoke at the event and said a strike was planned on Feb. 9 during the Super Bowl. The coalition did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“That means immigrant businesses are closed,” she said during Friday’s event. “That means immigrant workers stay home and immigrant customers stay home, too.”
In light of President Donald Trump’s continued efforts to crack down on immigration, officials in Philadelphia are taking a stand against his policies. Mayor Jim Kenney and other city leaders have vowed to protect immigrants and refugees in the city, despite threats from the Trump administration to withhold federal funding.Kenney has been a vocal critic of Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and policies, including the travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries and the separation of families at the border. He has worked to make Philadelphia a sanctuary city, where local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
In a statement, Kenney said, “We will not be intimidated by President Trump’s threats. Philadelphia is a welcoming city, and we will continue to stand up for our immigrant communities and protect their rights.”
Other officials in the city have echoed Kenney’s sentiments, emphasizing the importance of diversity and inclusion in Philadelphia. City Councilwoman Helen Gym said, “We will not allow President Trump to divide us or demonize immigrants. Philadelphia is a city of immigrants, and we will continue to support and protect all residents, regardless of their immigration status.”
The pushback from Philadelphia officials comes as Trump ramps up his anti-immigration efforts, with plans to increase deportations and build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But in Philadelphia, the message is clear: immigrants are welcome here, and they will be protected.
Tags:
- Philly officials
- President Donald Trump
- Anti-immigration
- Immigration efforts
- Philadelphia
- Political stand
- Local government
- Immigration policy
- Resistance
- Public officials
#Philly #officials #stand #President #Donald #Trumps #antiimmigration #efforts
Trump’s EPA Just Deleted Climate Change
On Jan. 27, the Environmental Protection Agency quietly removed all information about climate change from its homepage and other prominent areas of its website, burying it deep in sections that are harder to find.
Environmental advocates condemned the deletions, part of sweeping efforts to revise federal websites to reflect President Donald Trump’s agenda, saying the information suppression comes at a time when climate upheaval is intensifying damage and harm.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website overhaul reprised a similar move by Trump’s first administration, which touched off a “Don’t Say Climate” movement among some Republican-led state governments. The new erasure came two days before the U.S. Senate confirmed Trump’s nominee to lead the agency: former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who has pledged to slash EPA funding, roll back environmental protections, and promote more fossil fuel production.
In a related push, Trump’s new transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, is aiming to eliminate fuel economy standards, one of President Joe Biden’s more ambitious environmental initiatives.
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration made a controversial move by deleting mentions of climate change from its website. This decision has sparked outrage among environmental activists, scientists, and concerned citizens who believe that addressing climate change is crucial for protecting the planet.By removing information about climate change from its website, the EPA is sending a dangerous message that they are not prioritizing the issue or taking it seriously. This move is seen as a step backward in the fight against climate change and could have far-reaching consequences for the environment and future generations.
It is important for the public to stay informed and engaged on climate change issues, despite attempts to downplay or erase the issue by government agencies. Taking action to address climate change is more important now than ever, and we must hold our leaders accountable for their decisions that impact the planet. Let’s continue to advocate for environmental protection and push for policies that prioritize sustainability and combat climate change.
Tags:
- Trump administration
- EPA
- Climate change
- Environmental policy
- Government decision
- Trump’s actions
- Environmental protection
- Climate change denial
- Environmental regulations
- Political controversy
#Trumps #EPA #Deleted #Climate #Change
What voters are saying about Trump’s second term
President Donald Trump made quick work of his first week-plus back in office — ticking off a number of campaign-trail promises, issuing a boatload of pardons (some controversial) and enacting retribution on his political opponents.
So far, the early polling shows Trump starting with more backing from voters — and more wiggle room — than he had going into his first term in the White House. But it remains to be seen how voters will judge his first actions as president.
The former president entered his second term with a better image rating than he had in January 2017. NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling from the days before his first inauguration found just 38% of adults giving him a positive rating, while Fox News found 42% of registered voters viewed him positively at that point.
Now, Fox News’ most recent poll showed Trump with a 50% positive rating among registered voters and a 50% unfavorable rating. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 47% of registered voters viewed him favorably, while 51% viewed him unfavorably. Both polls were conducted before Trump took office.
Polling is split on Americans’ expectations for Trump. According to CNN polling, 56% of American adults say they expect Trump to be a very good or fairly good president, while 43% expect him to be fairly poor or very poor. (CNN’s preinaugural poll in January 2021 found slightly higher expectations ahead of Joe Biden’s term, while its polling in January 2017 found adults split on their expectations for Trump, with 48% saying they think he’d be very or fairly good and 48% saying he’d be very or fairly poor.)
A preinaugural poll from The New York Times and Ipsos found that 47% of adults are either excited or optimistic about his presidency, while 51% are either pessimistic or worried about his presidency.
Meanwhile, when it comes to some of the key issues Trump has pursued in the earliest days of his second term, the polling shows both opportunity and peril for his presidency.
Polling from CNN and The New York Times showed that the economy is far and away the most important issue on Americans’ minds. But many of the headlines Trump has made so far center around issues like immigration and pardons, particularly his decision to issue a sweeping pardon for those convicted over their conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Americans appear broadly more open to Trump’s efforts on deportations than they do on the Jan. 6-related pardons. The polls also show that public support for Trump’s actions falls off when voters consider the potential outcomes if (or when) Trump takes the hardest line on those issues.
The Wall Street Journal found just 38% of registered voters backed blanket pardons for all Jan. 6 defendants (57% opposed it). That’s compared with 43% who said they’d back pardons for all except those convicted of assaulting police officers and 54% who opposed it. (Trump ended up pardoning virtually all who faced federal charges, including those convicted of violent offenses. A handful of others convicted on conspiracy charges got their sentences commuted.)
On immigration enforcement, there appears to be a majority or strong plurality baseline of support for Trump’s broad pledge of enacting widespread deportations. The Wall Street Journal found that 52% of registered voters favor a call to “detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants” and 45% oppose it, while 55% of adults in the New York Times/Ipsos poll supported deporting all immigrants in America illegally and 42% opposed it.
Restricting deportations to only those here illegally with criminal records is far more popular: 87% of adults support the policy, per the New York Times/Ipsos poll, and 74% of registered voters in the Wall Street Journal poll back it.
But deporting others is less popular. Fully 70% of registered voters oppose deporting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade and have paid taxes without having a criminal record, according to the Wall Street Journal poll. The survey also showed 57% oppose deporting undocumented immigrants with children who are American citizens (38% approved of the proposal).
On foreign policy, 60% of adults (per the New York Times/Ipsos poll) agree broadly with the idea that the U.S. should “pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home,” aligning broadly with Trump’s campaign rhetoric, compared to the 38% who said it’s “best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.” Narrow majorities believe America is giving too much aid to Ukraine and Israel. (In each case, about 30% want to maintain the status quo, while less than 20% want to see an increase in aid.)
And amid Trump’s criticism of the Biden administration’s policies about transgender people, and Trump’s executive order declaring the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, there are important divides in the country about transgender issues.
American adults are broadly split on whether society has struck the right balance in accommodating transgender people. According to The New York Times/Ipsos’ numbers, 49% say society has gone too far in striking the right balance, 21% say society hasn’t gone far enough, and another 28% say society has struck a reasonable balance.
But there’s far more support for another one of Trump’s positions: banning transgender women (defined in the poll as “athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female”) from women’s sports. Fully 79% of adults in that same poll backed that proposal, compared with just 18% who disagreed. And 71% said they believed no one under age 18 should have access to “puberty blocking drugs or hormone therapies” used in transgender care.
How much runway do voters typically give new presidents?
While Trump comes into office in better shape than he did in his first term — and the swing voters who backed him appear open to giving him some wiggle room — an analysis of NBC News polling spanning the last five presidencies shows how short honeymoons can be in the White House.
Biden saw his 51% approval rating in April 2021 slip to 45% by late October and down to 41% by March 2022. His approval rating never got above 46% for the rest of his presidency in NBC News polling. Trump’s first approval rating in NBC News polling was 44% in February 2017, a number that slipped immediately to 39% by the third NBC News poll of that year, in May. But Trump’s approval rating was more inelastic than other presidents of recent memory, staying inside a relatively narrow range of 39% to 47% for his entire presidency.
Then-President Barack Obama’s 60% approval rating in early March 2009 stayed consistent in an NBC News poll the following month. But his approval rating slid in four of the next five polls, though his low of 47% in December 2009 (the first NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found him below 50% approval) was substantially higher than the depths Trump’s or Biden’s numbers reached. After the initial dive, Obama’s approval rating oscillated around 50% until the summer before the 2010 midterm elections.
Then-President George W. Bush’s first year was marred by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which makes comparison to the first years of other presidencies difficult.
And while then-President Bill Clinton’s approval rating ticked up from 51% shortly after he took office to 57% in March 1993, it slid down to 41% by June 1993, before a long march up back to 60% on the first anniversary of his taking office. Clinton’s approval rating then proceeded to slide in 1994 all the way down to 43% before Republicans took over Congress in that year’s midterm elections.
After Trump’s re-election, many voters are expressing a mix of emotions and opinions about his second term in office. Some are thrilled to see him continue his policies and promises, while others are concerned about what the next four years will bring.Supporters of Trump are praising his strong leadership, economic accomplishments, and efforts to secure the border. They believe that he will continue to put America first and fight for the interests of the American people.
On the other hand, critics of Trump are worried about his divisive rhetoric, handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and controversial decisions. They fear that his second term could further polarize the country and undermine democracy.
Overall, voters are divided on Trump’s second term, with some hopeful for positive change and others anxious about the future. As the next four years unfold, it will be interesting to see how Trump’s presidency continues to shape the political landscape in America.
Tags:
- Trump’s second term feedback
- Voter opinions on Trump’s second term
- Trump reelection reviews
- Public response to Trump’s second term
- Trump administration feedback
- Second term impressions of President Trump
- Voters react to Trump’s second term
- Trump’s reelection reactions
- Public sentiment on Trump’s second term
- Trump’s second term approval ratings
#voters #Trumps #term
What the polls say about the start of Trump’s second term
President Donald Trump made quick work of his first week-plus back in office — ticking off a number of campaign-trail promises, issuing a boatload of pardons (some controversial) and enacting retribution on his political opponents.
So far, the early polling shows Trump starting with more backing from voters — and more wiggle room — than he had going into his first term in the White House. But it remains to be seen how voters will judge his first actions as president.
The former president entered his second term with a better image rating than he had in January 2017. NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling from the days before his first inauguration found just 38% of adults giving him a positive rating, while Fox News found 42% of registered voters viewed him positively at that point.
Now, Fox News’ most recent poll showed Trump with a 50% positive rating among registered voters and a 50% unfavorable rating. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 47% of registered voters viewed him favorably, while 51% viewed him unfavorably. Both polls were conducted before Trump took office.
Polling is split on Americans’ expectations for Trump. According to CNN polling, 56% of American adults say they expect Trump to be a very good or fairly good president, while 43% expect him to be fairly poor or very poor. (CNN’s preinaugural poll in January 2021 found slightly higher expectations ahead of Joe Biden’s term, while its polling in January 2017 found adults split on their expectations for Trump, with 48% saying they think he’d be very or fairly good and 48% saying he’d be very or fairly poor.)
A preinaugural poll from The New York Times and Ipsos found that 47% of adults are either excited or optimistic about his presidency, while 51% are either pessimistic or worried about his presidency.
Meanwhile, when it comes to some of the key issues Trump has pursued in the earliest days of his second term, the polling shows both opportunity and peril for his presidency.
Polling from CNN and The New York Times showed that the economy is far and away the most important issue on Americans’ minds. But many of the headlines Trump has made so far center around issues like immigration and pardons, particularly his decision to issue a sweeping pardon for those convicted over their conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Americans appear broadly more open to Trump’s efforts on deportations than they do on the Jan. 6-related pardons. The polls also show that public support for Trump’s actions falls off when voters consider the potential outcomes if (or when) Trump takes the hardest line on those issues.
The Wall Street Journal found just 38% of registered voters backed blanket pardons for all Jan. 6 defendants (57% opposed it). That’s compared with 43% who said they’d back pardons for all except those convicted of assaulting police officers and 54% who opposed it. (Trump ended up pardoning virtually all who faced federal charges, including those convicted of violent offenses. A handful of others convicted on conspiracy charges got their sentences commuted.)
On immigration enforcement, there appears to be a majority or strong plurality baseline of support for Trump’s broad pledge of enacting widespread deportations. The Wall Street Journal found that 52% of registered voters favor a call to “detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants” and 45% oppose it, while 55% of adults in the New York Times/Ipsos poll supported deporting all immigrants in America illegally and 42% opposed it.
Restricting deportations to only those here illegally with criminal records is far more popular: 87% of adults support the policy, per the New York Times/Ipsos poll, and 74% of registered voters in the Wall Street Journal poll back it.
But deporting others is less popular. Fully 70% of registered voters oppose deporting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade and have paid taxes without having a criminal record, according to the Wall Street Journal poll. The survey also showed 57% oppose deporting undocumented immigrants with children who are American citizens (38% approved of the proposal).
On foreign policy, 60% of adults (per the New York Times/Ipsos poll) agree broadly with the idea that the U.S. should “pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home,” aligning broadly with Trump’s campaign rhetoric, compared to the 38% who said it’s “best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.” Narrow majorities believe America is giving too much aid to Ukraine and Israel. (In each case, about 30% want to maintain the status quo, while less than 20% want to see an increase in aid.)
And amid Trump’s criticism of the Biden administration’s policies about transgender people, and Trump’s executive order declaring the federal government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, there are important divides in the country about transgender issues.
American adults are broadly split on whether society has struck the right balance in accommodating transgender people. According to The New York Times/Ipsos’ numbers, 49% say society has gone too far in striking the right balance, 21% say society hasn’t gone far enough, and another 28% say society has struck a reasonable balance.
But there’s far more support for another one of Trump’s positions: banning transgender women (defined in the poll as “athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female”) from women’s sports. Fully 79% of adults in that same poll backed that proposal, compared with just 18% who disagreed. And 71% said they believed no one under age 18 should have access to “puberty blocking drugs or hormone therapies” used in transgender care.
How much runway do voters typically give new presidents?
While Trump comes into office in better shape than he did in his first term — and the swing voters who backed him appear open to giving him some wiggle room — an analysis of NBC News polling spanning the last five presidencies shows how short honeymoons can be in the White House.
Biden saw his 51% approval rating in April 2021 slip to 45% by late October and down to 41% by March 2022. His approval rating never got above 46% for the rest of his presidency in NBC News polling. Trump’s first approval rating in NBC News polling was 44% in February 2017, a number that slipped immediately to 39% by the third NBC News poll of that year, in May. But Trump’s approval rating was more inelastic than other presidents of recent memory, staying inside a relatively narrow range of 39% to 47% for his entire presidency.
Then-President Barack Obama’s 60% approval rating in early March 2009 stayed consistent in an NBC News poll the following month. But his approval rating slid in four of the next five polls, though his low of 47% in December 2009 (the first NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that found him below 50% approval) was substantially higher than the depths Trump’s or Biden’s numbers reached. After the initial dive, Obama’s approval rating oscillated around 50% until the summer before the 2010 midterm elections.
Then-President George W. Bush’s first year was marred by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which makes comparison to the first years of other presidencies difficult.
And while then-President Bill Clinton’s approval rating ticked up from 51% shortly after he took office to 57% in March 1993, it slid down to 41% by June 1993, before a long march up back to 60% on the first anniversary of his taking office. Clinton’s approval rating then proceeded to slide in 1994 all the way down to 43% before Republicans took over Congress in that year’s midterm elections.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
As we approach the beginning of President Trump’s second term, many are looking to the polls to gauge the public’s perception of his presidency. According to recent polling data, there is a mix of opinions on Trump’s performance so far.Some polls show that Trump’s approval rating has increased slightly since the start of his second term, with a majority of respondents expressing confidence in his ability to lead the country. These supporters point to his strong stance on immigration, foreign policy, and the economy as reasons for their approval.
However, other polls paint a different picture, with a significant portion of the population expressing dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of various issues, including healthcare, climate change, and race relations. Critics argue that Trump’s divisive rhetoric and controversial policies have further polarized the country and damaged the nation’s reputation on the world stage.
Overall, the polls suggest that Trump’s second term is off to a contentious start, with Americans sharply divided along partisan lines. As the president continues to navigate the challenges of his second term, it will be interesting to see how public opinion shifts in response to his actions and decisions.
Tags:
Trump second term, polls, presidential approval, election results, political analysis, public opinion, Trump administration, policy decisions, voter sentiment, political landscape, presidency, government approval
#polls #start #Trumps #termCensus Director Santos resigns, making way for Trump’s pick : NPR
U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Santos testifies during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the bureau in December 2024 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
hide captiontoggle caption
Mariam Zuhaib/AP
The director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Robert Santos, announced Thursday he is resigning, giving President Trump an early opportunity to nominate a new political appointee to lead the agency.
Arturo Vargas, chair of the bureau’s 2030 Census Advisory Committee, tells NPR that the committee’s members received an email announcement, a copy of which NPR has reviewed.
“It’s been such an honor to serve our nation,” Santos wrote Thursday in a LinkedIn post sharing NPR’s story after it was published. The bureau’s public information office did not immediately respond to NPR’s inquiries.
The decision by Santos, who started as the bureau’s director in 2022, cuts short a five-year appointment during key preparations for the 2030 census. The next constitutionally required head count of the country’s residents is set to be used to redistribute political representation and trillions in federal funding across the country over the next decade.
“It’s always important for an agency as large as the Census Bureau to have stability in its most senior position, and we’re at a critical point at the Census Bureau’s preparations for the 2030 decennial census,” says Vargas, the advisory committee chair, who is also the CEO for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. “I’ll miss having somebody with the expertise and perspective that Santos has brought to the position as the bureau prepares for 2030.”
Santos — a nationally recognized statistician who is the first Latino to head the bureau — joined the federal government’s largest statistical agency as a Biden appointee after years of interference at the bureau by the first Trump administration.
Before becoming the agency’s director, Santos was a vocal opponent of how Trump officials handled the 2020 census — including a last-minute decision to end counting early during the COVID-19 pandemic and a failed push to add a question about U.S. citizenship status that was likely to deter many Latino and Asian American residents from participating in the official population tally.
During his three-year tenure, Santos made frequent outreach trips around the country in an attempt to rebuild public trust in the bureau’s leadership.
“It’s important for all Americans to understand that the bureau collects data for their benefit, and I think the outreach he oversaw helped rebuild confidence and interest in the Census Bureau’s work,” says Terri Ann Lowenthal, a census consultant who was once the staff director of the former House oversight subcommittee for the national tally.
Santos helped oversee the creation of a new committee of outside advisers for the 2030 census, as well as planned changes to how the bureau produces statistics on race and ethnicity, a now-dropped, controversial proposal to transform data about people with disabilities and research into how surveys can ask about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Many census watchers are concerned about who Trump names to be the bureau’s next director. The first director appointed by Trump, Steven Dillingham, stepped down in 2021 shortly after whistleblower complaints about an attempt to rush the release of an incomplete data report on non-U.S. citizens. Trump’s first administration also created multiple new positions for political appointees who had no obvious qualifications for serving at the bureau’s top ranks.
“Any attempt to fill the position with someone involved in partisan political activities will undermine public confidence not only in the bureau’s work but the nation’s statistics generally,” Lowenthal says.
In a surprising turn of events, Census Director Santos has announced his resignation, paving the way for President Trump’s pick to take over the important position. This unexpected development has left many wondering about the future of the census and what impact this change in leadership will have on the upcoming census data collection. Stay tuned for more updates on this breaking news story. #CensusDirector #Resignation #TrumpPick #NPR
Tags:
- Census Director Santos resignation
- Trump’s pick for Census Director
- NPR news on Census Director resignation
- Census Director Santos stepping down
- Census Director replacement by Trump administration
- Santos resigns from Census Director role
- NPR report on Census Director resignation
- Trump’s nominee for Census Director
- Census Director Santos departure
- Impact of Census Director resignation on Trump administration
#Census #Director #Santos #resigns #making #Trumps #pick #NPR
US colleges returning to campus sexual assault rules created during Trump’s first term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Schools and universities responding to complaints of sexual misconduct must return to policies created during President Donald Trump’s first term, with requirements for live hearings and more protections for accused students, according to new guidance issued Friday by the Education Department.
In a memo to education institutions across the nation, the agency clarified that Title IX, a 1972 law barring discrimination based on sex, will be enforced according to a set of rules created by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The rules govern how complaints of misconduct are investigated and how to settle cases where students present differing accounts.
Colleges already have been returning to DeVos’ 2020 rules in recent weeks since a federal judge in Kentucky overturned the Biden administration’s Title IX rules. The court’s decision effectively ordered a return to the earlier Trump administration rules.
Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox
See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories.
A statement from the Education Department called Biden’s rules an “egregious slight to women and girls.”
“Under the Trump Administration, the Education Department will champion equal opportunity for all Americans, including women and girls, by protecting their right to safe and separate facilities and activities in schools, colleges and universities,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor.
The Biden administration sought to overhaul the rules and expand Title IX to protect LGBTQ+ students. It expanded the type of behavior that’s considered sexual harassment — a reversal of the DeVos policy, which used a narrower definition.
But a federal judge in Kentucky overturned Biden’s rule on Jan. 9, saying it was a presidential overstep and violated constitutional free speech rights by telling schools to honor students’ preferred pronouns. The judge, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves, said there was nothing in Title IX suggesting it should cover anything more than it did when Congress created it.
Even before the decision, Biden’s rule had been halted in half the states amid legal challenges from Republicans.
The full text of the Title IX law is just 37 words long, but the federal government has added rules over the years explaining how it’s interpreted. DeVos’ policy adds 500 pages detailing how schools must address complaints and how the Education Department makes sure schools comply.
Already, the Trump administration has taken a hard turn on its enforcement of Title IX: On Tuesday the Education Department said it opened an investigation into Denver schools after the district converted a girl’s restroom into an all-gender restroom while leaving another bathroom exclusive to boys.
The new memo says even investigations that started when Biden’s rules were in effect “should be immediately reoriented to comport fully with the requirements of the 2020 Title IX Rule.”
The change was celebrated by advocates who said Biden’s rules did too little to protect accused students. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said the 2020 rules will ensure fairness, highlighting a requirement that both parties be able to have a lawyer at campus hearings and to review all evidence.
“The return to the 2020 rules ensures that all students — whether they are the accused or the accuser — will receive fair treatment and important procedural safeguards,” said Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at FIRE.
Victims’ rights groups called it a step backward that will deter students from reporting assaults.
“Schools must step up to protect students in the absence of adequate federal guidance,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, a student-led group.
Among the most controversial elements of DeVos’ policy is a requirement to hold live hearings where accused students can cross-examine their accusers through an adviser. The Biden rule had eliminated the requirement and made live hearings optional, though some courts had previously upheld an accused student’s right to cross examination.
More broadly, the 2020 policy narrows the definition of sexual harassment and the scope of cases that schools must address. It also reduces the liability for colleges, holding them responsible only if they acted with “deliberate indifference.”
Trump’s new pick for education secretary is Linda McMahon, a longtime Trump ally known for building the World Wrestling Entertainment professional wrestling empire with her husband, Vince McMahon. Her Senate confirmation hearing has yet to be scheduled.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
In recent weeks, several US colleges and universities have announced plans to revert back to sexual assault rules that were implemented during former President Trump’s first term in office. These rules, which were rolled back by the Biden administration, have sparked controversy and concern among students, faculty, and advocacy groups.The rules, officially known as Title IX regulations, were put in place by the Trump administration in 2020 and aimed to provide more protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. Among the changes included a narrower definition of sexual harassment, higher standards of evidence required for investigations, and the ability for accused students to cross-examine their accusers.
Critics of these rules argue that they create a hostile environment for survivors of sexual assault and make it more difficult for them to seek justice and support on college campuses. They fear that reverting back to these rules will only further harm survivors and discourage them from coming forward.
On the other hand, supporters of the rules argue that they provide due process protections for accused students and ensure a fair and balanced approach to handling sexual misconduct cases on campus.
As colleges and universities navigate this complex and sensitive issue, it is important for them to prioritize the safety and well-being of all students and ensure that their policies and procedures are fair, transparent, and in compliance with Title IX regulations. The debate over these rules is likely to continue as more schools announce their plans for the upcoming academic year.
Tags:
- US colleges
- campus sexual assault rules
- Trump administration
- higher education policies
- Title IX regulations
- college campus safety
- student safety measures
- Biden administration updates
- sexual misconduct policies
- campus crime prevention
#colleges #returning #campus #sexual #assault #rules #created #Trumps #term
